Prior research indicates that emotional suppression exacerbates distress and reduces cognitive performance and self-control. We extend this prior work in the current studies by examining whether emotional suppression in specific goal-relevant contexts impedes people's goal strivings and progress. In Study 1, participants (N = 146) provided reports every 2 weeks across a 2-month period reporting the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression during goal pursuit and reported important goal-related outcomes, including depressed mood, perceived support/closeness, goal effort, goal-related competence, and goal success. In Study 2, participants reported on the degree to which they engaged in emotional suppression while discussing a personal goal with their romantic partner (N = 100 heterosexual couples) and reported on the same outcomes as in Study 1 prior to, immediately following, and then 1 month after couples' discussions. In both studies, greater use of emotional suppression predicted increased depressed mood, reduced perceived support/closeness, and reduced goal effort, competence, and success across time. Corroborating individuals' self-reports, participants who engaged in emotional suppression were also perceived by their partners to experience greater depressed mood and lower feelings of support and closeness, and be less competent with regard to their goal (Study 2). The effects of emotional suppression were robust when controlling for a range of alternative explanations. These goal hindering effects are likely one important reason emotional suppression is linked with poorer psychological and health outcomes and extend our understanding of the detrimental impact that emotional suppression can have in people's everyday lives. (PsycINFO Database Record

How does emotion regulation in one social context spillover to functioning in another? We investigate this novel question by drawing upon recent evidence that 3 categories underpin the most commonly assessed emotion regulation strategies: disengagement, aversive cognitive perseveration, and adaptive engagement. We examine how these emotion regulation categories during marital conflict are associated with conflict resolution and assess the associated implications for functioning during a subsequent family activity. We also develop and compare observational and self-report measures of emotion regulation. Couples (N = 101) were video-recorded discussing a major conflict and reported on their emotion regulation during the discussion. Couples then participated in a family activity with their 5-year-old child, and reported on the quality of the family experience and responsiveness toward their child. Observational coders rated how much each participant exhibited each type of emotion regulation during the conflict discussion. Greater disengagement and aversive cognitive perseveration were associated with lower conflict resolution, and in turn, less positive experiences and poorer parental responsiveness during the family activity. Greater adaptive engagement had the opposite effects, but only disengagement and aversive cognitive perseveration had independent effects when controlling for the other emotion regulation categories. Finally, observational and self-report measures were only weakly associated, but illustrated the same pattern of effects. These novel findings suggest that emotion regulation strategies have important flow-on effects beyond the context initially enacted. The results also indicate that self-report versus observed measures of emotion regulation reveal similar patterns, but may capture different intrapersonal and interpersonal elements of emotion regulation.

Protecting men's power is fundamental to understanding the origin, expression, and targets of hostile sexism, yet no prior theoretical or empirical work has specified how hostile sexism is related to experiences of power. In the current studies, we propose that the interdependence inherent in heterosexual relationships will lead men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism to perceive they have lower power in their relationship, and that these perceptions will be biased. We also predicted that lower perceptions of power would in turn promote aggression toward intimate partners. Across 4 studies, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism perceived lower power in their relationships. Comparisons across partners supported that these lower perceptions of power were biased; men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism underestimated the power they had compared with their partners' reports of that power (Studies 1 and 2). These lower perceptions of power, in turn, predicted greater aggression toward female partners during couples' daily interactions (Study 1), observed during couples' video-recorded conflict discussions (Study 2), and reported over the last year (Studies 3 and 4). Moreover, the associations between hostile sexism, power, and aggression were specific to men perceiving lower relationship power rather than desiring greater power in their relationships (Studies 3 and 4), and they were not the result of generally being more dominant and aggressive (Studies 3 and 4), or more negative relationship evaluations from either partner (Studies 1-4). The findings demonstrate the importance of an interdependence perspective in understanding the experiences, aggressive expressions, and broader consequences associated with hostile sexism.

The COVID-19 pandemic is placing demands on parents that may amplify the risk of parents' distress and poor parenting. Leveraging a prepandemic study in New Zealand, the current research tested whether parents' psychological distress during a mandated lockdown predicts relative residual changes in poorer parenting and whether partner support and cooperative coparenting buffer this potentially detrimental effect. Participants included 362 parents; 310 were from the same family (155 dyads). Parents had completed assessments of psychological distress and parenting prior to the pandemic and then reported on their distress, parenting, partner support, and cooperative coparenting during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Parents' distress during the lockdown predicted relative residual increases in harsh parenting, but this effect was buffered by partner support. Parents' distress also predicted residual decreases in warm/responsive parenting and parent-child relationship quality, but these effects were buffered by cooperative coparenting. Partner support and cooperative coparenting are important targets for future research and interventions to help parents navigate challenging family contexts, including COVID-19 lockdowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents acute, ongoing relationship challenges. The current research tested how (1) preexisting vulnerabilities assessed prior to the pandemic (attachment insecurity) and (2) stress as couples endured a mandated quarantine predicted residual changes in relationship functioning. Controlling for prequarantine problems, relationship quality, and family environment, greater partners’ attachment anxiety predicted greater relationship problems, lower relationship quality, and a less stable and cohesive family environment when people were experiencing more stress. Greater partners’ attachment avoidance predicted lower problem-solving efficacy and family cohesion. The effects of partners’ preexisting vulnerabilities and pandemic-related stress demonstrate the utility of key models in relationship science in identifying who is at most risk of relationship problems in the unprecedented context of a mandated quarantine. The results emphasize that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship functioning will be shaped by the characteristics of partners with whom people are confined with during the pandemic.

The way emotions are expressed during relationship conflict should play an important role in facilitating conflict resolution, but the risk of rejection that conflict poses may promote expressive suppression, which could impede conflict resolution. In the current research, the authors applied a risk regulation perspective to understand when expressive suppression will occur during conflict. They predicted that (a) perceiving lower regard from the partner during conflict would predict greater expressive suppression, and (b) greater expressive suppression would undermine conflict resolution. In Study 1, individuals engaged in a conflict discussion with their romantic partner ( = 180 couples) and then reported the degree to which they felt regarded by their partner and generated a solution to the conflict during the discussion. Independent coders rated how much individuals attempted to suppress their emotional expressions during the conflict. In Study 2, individuals reported on their relationship conflict, perceived regard, expressive suppression, and conflict resolution every day across a 3-week period ( = 73 couples). In both studies, perceiving lower positive regard during conflict was associated with greater expressive suppression. Greater expressive suppression was, in turn, associated with lower conflict resolution. These associations were not due to greater stress/upset or negative emotions, greater withdrawal, greater attachment insecurity, or lower positive regard for the partner. These within-situation associations suggest that expressive suppression may often arise to bypass the risk of rejection that occurs when people feel less positively regarded by their partner, but expressive suppression may also put relationships at further risk by undermining conflict resolution. (PsycINFO Database Record

The current research examined whether men's hostile sexism was a risk factor for family-based aggression during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in which families were confined to the home for 5 weeks. Parents who had reported on their sexist attitudes and aggressive behavior toward intimate partners and children prior to the COVID-19 pandemic completed assessments of aggressive behavior toward their partners and children during the lockdown (N = 362 parents of which 310 were drawn from the same family). Accounting for prelockdown levels of aggression, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism reported greater aggressive behavior toward their intimate partners and their children during the lockdown. The contextual factors that help explain these longitudinal associations differed across targets of family-based aggression. Men's hostile sexism predicted greater aggression toward intimate partners when men experienced low power during couples' interactions, whereas men's hostile sexism predicted greater aggressive parenting when men reported lower partner-child relationship quality. Novel effects also emerged for benevolent sexism. Men's higher benevolent sexism predicted lower aggressive parenting, and women's higher benevolent sexism predicted greater aggressive behavior toward partners, irrespective of power and relationship quality. The current study provides the first longitudinal demonstration that men's hostile sexism predicts residual changes in aggression toward both intimate partners and children. Such aggressive behavior will intensify the health, well-being, and developmental costs of the pandemic, highlighting the importance of targeting power-related gender role beliefs when screening for aggression risk and delivering therapeutic and education interventions as families face the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19.

The current research extends prior research linking negative emotions and emotion regulation tendencies to memory by investigating whether (a) naturally occurring negative emotions during routine weekly life are associated with more negatively biased memories of prior emotional experiences-a bias called projection; (b) tendencies to regulate emotions via expressive suppression are associated with greater projection bias in memory of negative emotions; and (c) greater projection bias in memory is associated with poorer future well-being. Participants (N = 308) completed a questionnaire assessing their general tendencies to engage in expressive suppression. Then, every week for 7 weeks, participants reported on (a) the negative emotions they experienced across the current week (e.g., "This week, I felt 'sad'"), (b) their memories of the negative emotions they experienced the prior week (e.g., "Last week, I felt 'sad'"), and (c) their well-being. First, participants demonstrated significant projection bias in memory: Greater negative emotions in a given week were associated with remembering emotions in the prior week more negatively than those prior emotions were originally reported. Second, projection bias in memory of negative emotions was greater for individuals who reported greater tendencies to regulate emotions via expressive suppression. Third, greater projection bias in memory of negative emotions was associated with reductions in well-being across weeks. These 3 novel findings indicate that (a) current negative emotions bias memory of past emotions, (b) this memory bias is magnified for people who habitually use expressive suppression to regulate emotions, and (c) this memory bias may undermine well-being over time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).